Murray responds to a question regarding his "endorsement" of Johnson over Goldwater in '64. This parallels the recent accusation made by Jack Hunter that Rothbard endorsed George H. Bush in '92, which is apparently meant to validate Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney.

The article provides a contrasting of/comparison given the two evils presented. Rothbard ends by saying:

"A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will--at least partly--hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism. When oh when do we get to start?"

Well, that revolution commenced with Ron Paul's 2007 presidential campaign, and arrived in full force in 2012. Foreshadowing this, Rothbard was asked in '89 who he would support in the '92 election. He goes on to discuss Ron Paul who could "knock the socks of Bush" (http://youtu.be/Fq8hNQpyrSY).

So, what's the difference between Rothbard's "endorsement" and Rand Paul's?

Rand made a positive endorsement of Romney. There was no attempt to contrast Romney and Obama. In fact, Rand Paul is going to campaign for Romney even in light of there being a revolution underway. Any attempts at comparing Rothbard's actions with that of Rand's are severely lacking.

An excerpt from a speech called "The Current State of World Affairs" by Murray Rothbard - Q & A. Recorded at the 1989 Texas State Libertarian Conference.